For millions of California residents across the state, accessing the medication they need to stay healthy and safe is a luxury they cannot afford. In one survey of Californians, nearly a quarter of respondents reported that high prescription drug prices force them to split doses in half, skip doses, or avoid filling their prescription altogether. And who’s profiting from the pain in our pocketbooks? Big Pharma companies who rake in billions of dollars per year – up to nearly $1,000 every second of the day – and spent $379 million on lobbying in 2023 alone.

There is broad consensus in our state that this status quo is unacceptable – especially amid rising housing costs and persistent inflation, something must be done to ensure no one has to sacrifice their health in order to put food on the table for their family. That’s why it is so confounding – and dangerous – that the California Legislature just passed a bill, Senate Bill 966 (SB 966), that would gut the few sources of leverage employers and unions have to tamp down on sky-high prescription drug prices.

While I commend the author, Senator Scott Wiener, on SB 966’s licensure and regulatory requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), there are so many elements in this bill that are the wrong-headed approach. As a state, we can do better and lead the nation in bringing down healthcare costs by addressing the systemic issues, rather than singling out one piece of the healthcare supply chain because of easy to achieve headlines. Unfortunately, for a bill that aims to be pro-consumer, SB 966 misses the mark and would raise prices for California patients and families. 

Supporters of SB 966 claim that this legislation is designed to control drug costs. At the source of this harmful bill is the misguided belief among some legislators that pharmacy benefit managers, whose core mission is to help drive down prescription drug costs, are responsible for patients’ high costs.

That belief is driven by the millions of dollars that Big Pharma spends in advertising, lobbying, and donations to legislators’ election campaigns. SB 966 would be a massive handout to the giant pharmaceutical companies who set – and raise – prices, by making it more difficult for employers and unions to work with PBMs to negotiate those prices down and offer more affordable options for patients at the pharmacy counter. It’s no surprise that they’re in favor of SB 966, but it’s time we ask ourselves: is a bill in the best interests of Big Pharma really in the best interest of our California families?

The answer is no. Nothing in SB 966 would lower health care costs or otherwise benefit patients. In fact, the Legislature even went so far as to exempt certain types of unions from the bill after those unions expressed concern that SB 966 would fundamentally change the benefits they currently offer their workers, and make it more expensive to provide those benefits. Another question: if SB 966 is bad for these workers, it’s clearly bad for all workers — why would the Legislature choose winners and losers and still push forward with this bill?

Employers of all sizes and unions in California and across the nation hire PBMs to administer their prescription drug plans. Health plan sponsors and patients alike benefit from the services PBMs offer. PBMs negotiate against big drug companies to reduce the cost of medication and manage pharmacy networks that ensure prescription drugs are accessible and safe.

SB 966 takes aim at some of the most popular and essential services PBMs offer to millions of working families in California.

For example, this bill would undercut the use of certain pharmacy networks and prescription programs. That includes changes to some convenient home delivery plans, an indispensable service for working families and rural Californians who do not have the means or access to pick up their medication at the drugstore. Deliveries directly to the front door not only improve access for patients but are also proven to provide lower cost options and increase medication adherence. SB 966 also targets vital programs that employers and unions use to ensure pharmacies offering complex prescription drugs adhere to stringent safety standards and provide these drugs at the most affordable cost.

All of these measures would foist new crushing health care costs on employers, and patients would quickly be forced to bear that burden through higher premiums and co-pays. Before proceeding any further, we have a responsibility to consider the consequences for the millions of hardworking Californians. And rather than signing a bill cheered on by big drug companies and special interests, Gov. Newsom should veto this bill so next year the Legislature can work together on meaningful consideration of what these proposals would actually do.

In a survey conducted this year, 73% of California voters said they opposed legislation that would strip away lower-cost pharmacy options such as home-delivery services, while a similar number of voters said they would be more likely to reject a candidate for office who backed such measures. Nearly 80% of respondents in the same poll said more must be done to address the role of big drug companies’ in pushing prices higher and higher. In other words, SB 966 isn’t just a bad bill on its merits – its provisions are deeply unpopular with California voters.

The choice Gov. Newsom makes now will have significant stakes for the health and financial well-being of Californians. By rejecting SB 966, he can take a stand for patients and workers — and stand up to Big Pharma.

---

Beth Bennett is a former Patient Accounting Manager at Madera Community Hospital and has over 50 years of experience in Health Insurance Management and Hospital Administration Management.